The effect of basal-bolus therapy varies with baseline 1,5-anhydroglucitol level in people with Type 2 diabetes: a post hoc analysis.

AIMS: To investigate the impact of baseline 1,5-anhydroglucitol on the treatment effect of basal-bolus therapy in people with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of onset 3, an 18-week, randomized, phase 3 trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart in basal-bolus therapy (n = 116) vs. basal insulin-only therapy (n = 120) in people with Type 2 diabetes. The estimated treatment difference in change from baseline in HbA1c was investigated for different cut-off values of baseline 1,5-anhydroglucitol (2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 µg/ml). RESULTS: The estimated treatment difference in change from baseline in HbA1c between basal-bolus therapy and basal insulin-only therapy was statistically significantly greater in participants with baseline 1,5-anhydroglucitol ≤3 µg/ml (n = 34) vs. >3 µg/ml (n = 198) [estimated treatment difference (95% CI): -1.53% (-2.12; -0.94) vs. -0.82% (-1.07; -0.57); P-value for interaction = 0.03]. The estimated treatment difference became more pronounced when comparing participants with 1,5-anhydroglucitol ≤2 µg/ml (n = 15) vs. >2 µg/ml (n = 217) [estimated treatment difference (95% CI): -2.26% (-3.15; -1.36) vs. -0.85% (-1.08; -0.62); P-value for interaction = 0.003]. For cut-off values ≥4 µg/ml, estimated treatment differences were numerically greater below the cut-off compared with above, although the interaction terms were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This analysis indicates that people with Type 2 diabetes with low 1,5-anhydroglucitol have an added treatment benefit with basal-bolus therapy compared with people with higher 1,5-anhydroglucitol. Further research is needed to clarify any clinical utility of these findings. Clinical Trials Registry No: NCT01850615.

Effect of adding insulin degludec to treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin and liraglutide: a double-blind randomized controlled trial (BEGIN: ADD TO GLP-1 Study).

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding insulin degludec (IDeg) to treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving liraglutide and metformin and qualifying for treatment intensification because of inadequate glycaemic control. METHODS: In this 26-week, double-blind trial, patients who still had inadequate glycaemic control after a 15-week run-in period with initiation and dose escalation of liraglutide to 1.8 mg in combination with metformin (≥1500 mg) were randomized to addition of once-daily IDeg ('IDeg add-on to liraglutide' arm; n = 174) or placebo ('placebo add-on to liraglutide' arm; n = 172), with dosing of both IDeg and placebo based on titration guidelines. RESULTS: At 26 weeks, the mean change in glycated haemoglobin level was greater in the IDeg add-on to liraglutide arm (-1.04%) than in the placebo add-on to liraglutide arm (-0.16%; p < 0.0001). Similarly, the mean fasting plasma glucose reduction was greater, and self-measured plasma glucose values were lower at all eight time points, with IDeg add-on versus placebo add-on (both p < 0.0001). At 26 weeks, the IDeg dose was 51 U (0.54 U/kg). During the run-in period with liraglutide, body weight decreased by ∼3 kg in both groups. After 26 weeks, the mean change was +2.0 kg (IDeg add-on to liraglutide) and -1.3 kg (placebo add-on to liraglutide). Confirmed hypoglycaemia rates were low in both groups, although higher with IDeg than with placebo (0.57 vs. 0.12 episodes/patient-years of exposure; p = 0.0002). Nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia was infrequent in both groups, with no episodes of severe hypoglycaemia, and no marked differences in adverse events with either treatment approach. CONCLUSION: The addition of liraglutide and IDeg to patients sub-optimally treated with metformin and liraglutide and requiring treatment intensification was found to be effective and well-tolerated.

AMG 151 (ARRY-403), a novel glucokinase activator, decreases fasting and postprandial glycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Phase I studies have shown that AMG 151 activates glucokinase, a key enzyme in glucose homeostasis. The present randomized, placebo-controlled phase IIa study evaluated the dose-effect relationship of the glucokinase activator AMG 151 relative to placebo on fasting plasma glucose (FPG) in 236 patients (33-35 patients per arm) with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin. Patients received oral AMG 151 at 50, 100 or 200 mg twice daily, AMG 151 at 100, 200 or 400 mg once daily or matching placebo for 28 days. A significant linear dose-effect trend was observed with the twice-daily regimen (p = 0.004) for change in FPG to day 28. No trend was observed with the once-daily regimen. A higher incidence of hypoglycaemia and hypertriglyceridaemia was observed with AMG 151 administration. AMG 151 significantly reduced FPG when administered twice daily but not when administered once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin.

Pulmonary function over 2 years in diabetic patients treated with prandial inhaled Technosphere Insulin or usual antidiabetes treatment: a randomized trial.

AIMS: Development of inhaled insulin has increased the need to understand its pulmonary safety. This study evaluated pulmonary function changes in diabetes patients receiving inhaled Technosphere Insulin (TI) or usual antidiabetes treatment (usual care). METHODS: This randomized, open-label study was conducted at 220 sites (25 July 2005 to 29 August 2008). Pulmonary function tests [forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)), forced vital capacity (FVC), total lung capacity (TLC) and lung diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DL(CO))] were prospectively followed over 2 years in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes receiving TI (n = 730) or usual care (n = 824), along with a cohort without diabetes not receiving any specific therapy (n = 145). RESULTS: Baseline demographics and pulmonary function were similar between diabetes treatment groups. Lung function declined from baseline in all groups. TI was non-inferior to usual care for mean change in FEV(1) from baseline to month 24 [mean (s.e.m.) 0.037 (0.0119) l; 95% CI 0.014 to 0.060] using mixed-model repeated-measure with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 50 ml/year. After a greater initial decline at month 3 with TI, rate of change (slope) in FEV(1), FVC and DL(CO) (months 3-24) was not statistically different between treatment groups. TI was well tolerated; no serious safety concerns emerged. The most common respiratory event associated with TI was mild, transient cough, occurring within minutes of inhalation. CONCLUSIONS: Observed changes in lung function with TI were small, occurred early after therapy initiation, remained non-progressive over 2 years and were unlikely to be clinically meaningful.

Glycaemic control with liraglutide: the phase 3 trial programme.

AIMS: To review the efficacy and safety of liraglutide from the phase 3 trials, focusing primarily on glycaemic control. KEY FINDINGS: Liraglutide was shown to reduce glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c) ) levels by up to 1.5% from baseline, significantly more than the comparators sitagliptin (-0.9%), glimepiride (-0.5%), rosiglitazone (-0.4%), insulin glargine (-1.1%) and exenatide (-0.8%). Both fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) levels were shown to be significantly reduced from baseline [up to -2.4 mmol/l (-43.2 mg/dl) and -2.7 mmol/l (-48.6 mg/dl) for FPG and PPG in the liraglutide 1.8 mg group, respectively]. Changes in HbA(1c) , FPG and PPG levels were sustained for the duration of the studies (up to 52 weeks). The glycaemic control offered by liraglutide was not associated with an increased rate of minor hypoglycaemic events compared with comparator treatments, with rates significantly lower than those of glimepiride and exenatide. Major hypoglycaemic events were rare and only occurred in combination with a sulfonylurea. Nausea was the most frequent adverse event, but subsided within the first few weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide has been shown to offer effective glycaemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes and is appropriate for use across the conventional continuum of care. Despite the sustained reductions in HbA(1c) , FPG and PPG levels achieved with liraglutide, rates of minor hypoglycaemia were generally low, although the risk increased when combined with a sulfonylurea. Liraglutide is therefore a promising new option for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Patient-directed titration for achieving glycaemic goals using a once-daily basal insulin analogue: an assessment of two different fasting plasma glucose targets - the TITRATE study.

AIMS: To compare efficacy and safety of two fasting plasma glucose (FPG) titration targets [4.4-6.1 mmol/l (80-110 mg/dl) and 3.9-5.0 mmol/l (70-90 mg/dl)] using a patient-directed, treat-to-target algorithm for once-daily basal insulin in insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes suboptimally treated with oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs). METHODS: In this 20-week, randomized, controlled, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target study, 244 insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes, HbA(1c)>or=7.0 and

Twice-daily and three-times-daily dosing of a repaglinide/metformin fixed-dose combination tablet provide similar glycaemic control.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of a new repaglinide/metformin fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet administered either twice a day (BID) or three times a day (TID) for the management of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This was a 26-week, multicentre, open-label parallel trial in which subjects poorly controlled with mono- or dual-oral antidiabetic therapy were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to instead receive repaglinide/metformin FDC either BID or TID or a rosiglitazone/metformin FDC BID. Two primary hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical manner: (i) treatment with the repaglinide/metformin FDC BID is non-inferior to that of the rosiglitazone/metformin FDC BID as measured by changes in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (results presented in companion paper) and (ii) repaglinide/metformin BID is non-inferior to repaglinide/metformin TID (as measured by changes in HbA1c). Additional efficacy and safety end-points were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 561 subjects were randomized; 383 completed the study. Repaglinide/metformin FDC BID was non-inferior to repaglinide/metformin FDC TID with respect to HbA1c. Additionally, changes in mean fasting plasma glucose values from baseline to end of study were not significantly different between the BID and the TID dose groups. There were no major hypoglycaemic episodes reported in either group during the trial, and overall adverse event profiles were similar. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of twice-daily dosing of a repaglinide/metformin FDC tablet was non-inferior to that of three-times-daily dosing.

Twice-daily dosing of a repaglinide/metformin fixed-dose combination tablet provides glycaemic control comparable to rosiglitazone/metformin tablet.

AIM: To assess the use of a new repaglinide/metformin fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this 26-week, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group trial, subjects poorly controlled with mono- or dual-oral antidiabetic therapy were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to receive a repaglinide/metformin FDC tablet either two times daily (BID) or three times daily (TID) or a rosiglitazone/metformin FDC tablet BID. The primary objective comprised two hypotheses tested in a hierarchical order: (i) that treatment with the repaglinide/metformin FDC BID is non-inferior to that of a rosiglitazone/metformin FDC tablet BID as measured by changes in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (results presented here) and (ii) if true, that treatment with the repaglinide/metformin FDC BID was non-inferior to that of the repaglinide/metformin FDC TID as measured by changes in HbA1c (results presented in a companion paper). Additional efficacy and safety end-points were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 561 subjects randomized, 383 completed the study. Reductions in HbA1c values became apparent at earlier times for repaglinide/metformin FDC BID treatment than rosiglitazone/metformin FDC BID, and final changes in HbA1c were not significantly different between treatment arms (p = 0.8186); thus, the predefined statistical criterion for non-inferiority was met. Overall adverse event profiles were comparable between treatment groups, and no major hypoglycaemic episodes were reported during the study. CONCLUSIONS: The repaglinide/metformin FDC BID regimen showed efficacy that was non-inferior to that of the rosiglitazone/metformin FDC BID regimen currently in clinical use and a more rapid reduction of HbA1c values. Thus, repaglinide/metformin FDC BID is a clinically feasible alternative to rosiglitazone/metformin FDC BID.

Addition of biphasic insulin aspart 30 to optimized metformin and pioglitazone treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: The ACTION Study (Achieving Control Through Insulin plus Oral ageNts).

AIM: Efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30, 30% short-acting and 70% intermediate-acting insulin aspart) added to an optimized treatment of metformin and pioglitazone (met/pio) were compared with treatment with optimized met/pio in type 2 diabetes patients. METHODS: This randomized, 34-week, parallel-group study enrolled insulin-naive, type 2 diabetes patients (HbA(1c) 7.5-12.0%) previously using two oral antidiabetic (OAD) agents. During an 8-week run-in period, treatment was changed to met/pio and doses were adjusted up to 2500 mg/day and 30 or 45 mg/day respectively. Subjects either continued met/pio alone or added BIAsp 30 initiated at 6 units twice daily and titrated to target plasma glucose (PG) (4.4-6.1 mmol/l). RESULTS: At end-of-study, subjects treated with BIAsp 30+met/pio (n = 93) had a mean (+/-s.d.) HbA(1c) reduction significantly greater than treatment with met/pio (n = 88) (1.5% +/- 1.1 vs. 0.2% +/- 0.9, p < 0.0001 between groups). Subjects treated with BIAsp 30+met/pio were more likely to reach The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and European Association for the Study of Diabetes/American Diabetes Association HbA(1c) targets of < or =6.5 and <7.0%, respectively, than with met/pio only (HbA(1c)< or =6.5%: 59 vs. 12%; HbA(1c) <7.0%: 76 vs. 24%). At end-of-study, self-monitored glucose profile values at all eight daily time points were significantly less for the BIAsp 30+met/pio group compared with the met/pio group, and minor hypoglycaemia (defined as PG < 3.1 mmol/l) was more frequent (8.3 vs. 0.1 events/year, p < 0.001). Both groups gained weight during treatment (BIAsp 30+met/pio, 4.6 +/- 4.3 kg; met/pio, 0.8 +/- 3.2 kg; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Addition of insulin in type 2 patients treated with met/pio is an effective way to achieve glycaemic targets. Treatment with BIAsp 30+met/pio achieved significantly greater reduction in HbA(1c), as compared with met/pio alone. In patients with type 2 diabetes poorly controlled by 2 OADs, more achieved glycaemic targets using BIAsp 30+met/pio than using met/pio alone.

Oral combination therapy: repaglinide plus metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes is characterized by decreases in insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity. Several classes of oral antidiabetic medications are currently approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. A stepwise treatment approach from monotherapy to combination therapy is traditionally used; however, the frequency of treatment failure with monotherapy has resulted in a move towards earlier treatment with combination therapies that target the two principal defects in glycaemic control. One such combination regimen is repaglinide (a prandial glucose regulator that increases insulin release) plus metformin (an insulin sensitizer that inhibits hepatic glucose output, increases peripheral glucose uptake and utilization and minimizes weight gain). Findings from several clinical trials have shown that combination therapy with repaglinide plus metformin is well tolerated and results in greater reductions of haemoglobin A(1c) and fasting plasma glucose values compared with either monotherapy. Repaglinide may also provide a more suitable alternative to combination therapy with sulphonylureas and metformin because of its reduced propensity for hypoglycaemia. The combination regimen of repaglinide plus metformin should therefore be considered as a valuable option in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes when monotherapy is no longer adequate.

Does serum 1,5-anhydroglucitol establish a relationship between improvements in HbA1c and postprandial glucose excursions? Supportive evidence utilizing the differential effects between biphasic insulin aspart 30 and insulin glargine.

AIM: To investigate the relationship between changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) and postprandial glucose excursions on 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG) in patients with Type 2 diabetes, utilizing the differential effects between biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) or insulin glargine (IGlar) on postprandial glucose (PPG) levels. METHODS: 1,5-AG was measured using the GlycoMark assay at baseline and after 12 and 28 weeks in the INITiation of Insulin to reach HbA(1c) Target (INITIATE) study of 233 patients randomized to either BIAsp 30 or IGlar. RESULTS: Baseline 1,5-AG was low and not significantly different (4.9 +/- 3.5 and 4.3 +/- 2.6 microg/ml in the BIAsp 30 and IGlar groups, respectively). After 28 weeks, the levels of 1,5-AG were higher in the BIAsp 30 than in the IGlar group (13.4 vs. 11.1 microg/ml, P = 0.008) and change from baseline was 25% greater with BIAsp 30 than IGlar (8.4 vs. 6.7 microg/ml, P = 0.011). 1,5-AG levels increased as a function of decreasing HbA(1c) or the average change in postprandial plasma glucose (PPG(ave)) with significant relationships for 1,5-AG/ HbA(1c) vs. HbA(1c) or 1,5-AG/PPG(ave )vs. PPG(ave) (both P < 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: As reported in previous publications, 1,5-AG reflects ambient glycaemic control and increases with reductions in HbA(1c) and postprandial glucose. The greater reductions in postprandial excursion achieved with BiAsp 30 compared with glargine were associated with greater increases in 1,5-AG. Even moderate elevations in HbA(1c) substantially lower 1,5-AG, suggesting that it can be most discriminating in identifying patients with excessive postprandial glucose excursions at HbA(1c) levels that approach the upper end of the normal range.

Differential effect of beta-blocker therapy on insulin resistance as a function of insulin sensitizer use: results from GEMINI.

AIMS: To determine whether the beneficial effects of carvedilol on insulin resistance (IR) are affected by the concomitant use of insulin sensitizers [thiazolidinediones (TZDs) and metformin]. METHODS: Changes in HbA1c and homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were assessed over 5 months, comparing carvedilol with metoprolol tartrate according to insulin sensitizer (TZDs and metformin) use. RESULTS: In TZD/metformin users, carvedilol patients showed a 5.4% decrease [95% confidence interval (CI) -11.9, 1.6; P = 0.13] and metoprolol tartrate patients showed a 2.8% decrease (95% CI -8.5, 3.2; P = 0.35) in HOMA-IR. The -2.6% difference between treatments was not significant (95% CI -10.7, 6.2; P = 0.55). In contrast, those not taking TZD/metformin experienced a 13.2% increase in HOMA-IR on metoprolol tartrate (95% CI 3.2, 24.1; P < 0.01) and a 4.8% decrease in HOMA-IR on carvedilol (95% CI -14.6, 6.0; P = 0.37), with a significant treatment difference of -15.9% favouring carvedilol (95% CI -26.6, -3.6; P = 0.01). There was no significant treatment interaction for the use of TZD/metformin and HbA1c. A statistically significant treatment difference was observed for HbA1c after 5 months favouring carvedilol after adjusting for insulin sensitizer use (-0.11%, 95% CI -0.214, -0.009; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes and hypertension not taking insulin sensitizers, the use of metoprolol tartrate resulted in a worsening of insulin resistance, an effect not seen with carvedilol. However, in TZD/metformin users the difference between the beta-blockers was not statistically significant.

Weight gain in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential causes of weight gain using insulin and combination therapy in type 2 diabetes. DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an open-label prospective study of 6-month duration. Randomization was performed to insulin monotherapy, insulin and pioglitazone 30 mg daily, or insulin and metformin up to 2000 mg daily. Fifty-seven subjects with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes were enrolled. The goal was to achieve a normal haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (<5.6%). Weight, resting energy expenditure (REE), reported energy intake and total energy expenditure, HbA1c, glycosuria, plasma leptin, ghrelin and adiponectin levels, and body fat were measured. RESULTS: A total of 49 subjects completed the study. At baseline, weight was 89.4 +/- 22.9 kg and HbA1c was 11.1 +/- 1.5%. Weight increased by 7.46, 7.60 and 7.12 kg in the monotherapy, metformin and pioglitazone groups, respectively [p = 0.98 between and <0.0001 within the groups by repeated measures-analysis of variance (RM-anova)]. HbA1c dropped to 7.8 +/- 0.9% in the monotherapy arm, 7.6 +/- 1.0% in the metformin arm and 7.2 +/- 1.2% in the pioglitazone arm. Reported energy intake decreased. Glycosuria decreased but was not correlated with weight gain, while HbA1c changes were correlated with weight gain. REE per lean mass decreased (p = 0.04 by RM-anova). The subcutaneous fat areas in the insulin monotherapy and pioglitazone arms showed increases (p = 0.02 and 0.004 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Weight gain was probably not due to an increase in food intake, while REE per lean body mass decreased, suggesting a role for increased efficiency in fuel usage due to improved glycaemic control. A drop in glycosuria probably also contributed to weight gain. In the monotherapy and pioglitazone arms, the subcutaneous fat areas increased.

beta-blocker use and diabetes symptom score: results from the GEMINI study.

AIM: The Glycemic Effect in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives (GEMINI) trial compared the metabolic effects of two beta-blockers in people with type 2 diabetes and hypertension treated with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade and found differences in metabolic outcomes. In this paper, we report the results of a prespecified secondary analysis of GEMINI that sought to determine the effect of these two beta-blockers on commonly reported symptoms. METHODS: The Diabetes Symptom Checklist (DSC), a self-report questionnaire measuring the occurrence and perceived burden of diabetes-related symptoms, was completed by GEMINI participants at baseline and at the end of the study (maintenance month 5). The DSC assessed symptoms in eight domains: psychology (fatigue), psychology (cognitive), neuropathy (pain), neuropathy (sensory), cardiology, ophthalmology, hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: Comparison of the mean change in self-reported diabetes-related symptoms indicated a significant treatment difference favouring carvedilol over metoprolol tartrate in overall symptom score (-0.08; 95% CI -0.15, -0.01; p = 0.02) and in the domains for hypoglycaemia symptoms (-0.12; 95% CI -0.23, -0.02; p = 0.02) and hyperglycaemia symptoms (-0.16; 95% CI -0.27, -0.05; p = 0.005). Carvedilol resulted in fewer perceived diabetes-related symptoms in patients with diabetes and hypertension. CONCLUSION: Carvedilol resulted in a lower perceived burden of diabetes-related symptoms in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. The addition of a well-tolerated beta-blocker to RAS blockade may improve hypertension treatment and quality of life in patients with diabetes.

Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes patients failing oral agents: cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 vs. insulin glargine in the US.

OBJECTIVES: To project the long-term clinical and economic outcomes of treatment with biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 70/30, 30% soluble and 70% protaminated insulin aspart) vs. insulin glargine in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes patients failing to achieve glycemic control with oral antidiabetic agents alone (OADs). METHODS: Baseline patient characteristics and treatment effect data from the recent 'INITIATE' clinical trial served as input to a peer-reviewed, validated Markov/Monte-Carlo simulation model. INITIATE demonstrated improvements in HbA1c favouring BIAsp 70/30 vs. glargine (-0.43%; p < 0.005) and greater efficacy in reaching glycaemic targets among patients poorly controlled on OAD therapy. Effects on life expectancy (LE), quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), cumulative incidence of diabetes-related complications and direct medical costs (2004 USD) were projected over 35 years. Clinical outcomes and costs were discounted at a rate of 3.0% per annum. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Improvements in glycaemic control were projected to lead to gains in LE (0.19 +/- 0.24 years) and QALE (0.19 +/- 0.17 years) favouring BIAsp 70/30 vs. glargine. Treatment with BIAsp 70/30 was also associated with reductions in the cumulative incidences of diabetes-related complications, notably in renal and retinal conditions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $46 533 per quality-adjusted life year gained with BIAsp 70/30 vs. glargine (for patients with baseline HbA1c >/= 8.5%, it was $34 916). Total lifetime costs were compared to efficacy rates in both arms as a ratio, which revealed that the lifetime cost per patient treated successfully to target HbA1c levels of <7.0% and

The visceral and subcutaneous fat changes in type 1 diabetes: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of improved glycaemic control on the abdominal visceral and subcutaneous fat in type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Sixteen subjects were enrolled for this 6-month study. The goal was to achieve normal haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c <5.6% in our laboratory). T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging was used to measure the abdominal subcutaneous and visceral fat areas at the L2-L3 disk level. Activity and energy intake were assessed using a weekly recall and food diary respectively. Plasma leptin, ghrelin and adiponectin levels were measured at baseline and at 6 months. RESULTS: Twelve subjects completed the study. HbA1c was 10.4 +/- 2.2% at baseline, and abdominal visceral to subcutaneous fat ratio was 0.29 +/- 0.15. HbA1c dropped to 8.0 +/- 1.4% at 6 months (p = 0.009). There was a +1.85 kg weight change in 6 months (p = 0.30), whereas the visceral to subcutaneous fat ratios changed to 0.36 +/- 0.18 (p = 0.22). Daily metabolic equivalents (METs) of activity at 6 months correlated with a decrease in the visceral to subcutaneous fat ratios (r = -0.80, p = 0.01). Ghrelin level changes correlated negatively with the changes in the visceral to subcutaneous fat ratio (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The visceral to subcutaneous fat changes had a negative correlation with the physical activity METs at 6 months but not with HbA1c changes in this study. The correlation between the changes in ghrelin and the visceral to subcutaneous fat ratios is intriguing, but a larger study may be needed to confirm this finding.

Potential causes of weight gain in type 1 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: To investigate the potential causes of weight gain with insulin therapy and improved diabetic control in type 1 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This was an open-label prospective study of insulin therapy of 6 months duration in an academic medical centre. Twenty-one subjects with type 1 diabetes were enrolled. The goal was to achieve an haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the range of individuals without diabetes (<5.6%). At baseline, 3 and 6 months, weight, resting energy expenditure, appetite assessment, food intake, activity level, HbA1c and 24-h glycosuria and urea nitrogen were measured. Plasma leptin, ghrelin and adiponectin levels and body fat were measured at baseline and 6 months. RESULTS: At baseline, average weight was 73.7 +/- 17.4 kg and HbA1c was 10.0 +/- 2.2%. Weight increased by 2.15 kg (2.69% of baseline) by 6 months whereas the HbA1c dropped by 1.71% (16.3%) to 7.9%. Energy intake differences between 3 and 6 months had a negative correlation with weight gain, but the changes in glycosuria, appetite scores and the frequency of hypoglycaemia did not correlate with weight gain. Glycaemic control did not correlate with weight change but tended to correlate with fat mass increase (p = 0.064; r = -0.51). An increase in the activity levels between 3 and 6 months correlated with decreasing fat mass (p = 0.037; r = -0.74). The changes in the appetite scores had a negative correlation with fat mass gain (p = 0.035; r = -0.61). The changes in lean body mass correlated with protein and total energy intake (p = 0.007, r = 0.85 and p = 0.003, r = 0.73 respectively). The changes in leptin levels correlated with weight gain. CONCLUSIONS: The lipogenic effect of insulin with subsequent increase in fat mass may be the primary cause of this weight gain that can be attenuated by the increases in the activity levels. The negative correlation of energy intake and appetite scores with fat mass gain suggests that they do not play a significant role in fat mass gain whereas energy intake did correlate with lean body mass gain.

Topiramate vs placebo in painful diabetic neuropathy: analgesic and metabolic effects.

BACKGROUND: Using identical methods, three simultaneous placebo-controlled trials of topiramate for painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) did not reach significance. This independent yet concurrent placebo-controlled trial used different methods to assess topiramate efficacy and tolerability in PDN. METHODS: This 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial included 323 subjects with PDN and pain visual analog (PVA) score of at least 40 on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst possible pain). Topiramate (n = 214) or placebo (n = 109) was titrated to 400 mg daily or maximum tolerated dose. Short-acting rescue analgesics were permitted only during the first 6 weeks. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups except for mean body weight (topiramate, 101.4 kg; placebo, 95.7 kg; p = 0.028). Twelve weeks of topiramate treatment reduced PVA scale score (from 68.0 to 46.2 mm) more effectively than placebo (from 69.1 to 54.0 mm; p = 0.038). Fifty percent of topiramate-treated subjects and 34% of placebo-treated subjects responded to treatment, defined as >30% reduction in PVA scale score (p = 0.004). Topiramate monotherapy also reduced worst pain intensity (p = 0.003 vs placebo) and sleep disruption (p = 0.020 vs placebo). Diarrhea, loss of appetite, and somnolence were the most commonly reported adverse events in the topiramate group. Topiramate reduced body weight (-2.6 vs +0.2 kg for placebo; p < 0.001) without disrupting glycemic control. CONCLUSIONS: Topiramate monotherapy reduced pain and body weight more effectively than placebo in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.

Combination therapy for type 2 diabetes: repaglinide plus rosiglitazone.

AIMS: This 24-week, randomized, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group clinical trial compared efficacy and safety of repaglinide monotherapy, rosiglitazone monotherapy, and combination therapy (repaglinide plus rosiglitazone) in Type 2 diabetes after unsatisfactory response to sulphonylurea or metformin monotherapy. METHODS: Enrolled patients (n = 252) were adults having Type 2 diabetes for at least 1 year, with HbA(1c) values > 7.0% after previous monotherapy (sulphonylurea or metformin, >/= 50% maximal dose). Prior therapy was withdrawn for 2 weeks, followed by randomization to repaglinide, rosiglitazone, or repaglinide/rosiglitazone. Study treatments were initiated with a 12-week dose optimization period (doses optimized according to labelling), followed by a 12-week maintenance period. Efficacy endpoints were changes in HbA(1c) values (primary) or fasting plasma glucose values (secondary). RESULTS: Baseline HbA(1c) values were comparable (9.3% for repaglinide, 9.0% for rosiglitazone, 9.1% for combination). Mean changes in HbA(1c) values at the end of treatment were greater for repaglinide/rosiglitazone therapy (-1.43%) than for repaglinide (-0.17%) or rosiglitazone (-0.56%) monotherapy. Reductions of fasting plasma glucose values were also greater for combination therapy (-5.2 mmol/l, -94 mg/dl) than for repaglinide monotherapy (-3.0 mmol/l, -54 mg/dl) or rosiglitazone monotherapy (-3.7 mmol/l, -67 mg/dl). Minor hypoglycaemic events occurred in 9% of combination therapy patients, vs. 6% for repaglinide and 2% for rosiglitazone. Individual weight gains for combination therapy were correlated to HbA(1c) response. CONCLUSIONS: The combination therapy regimen was well tolerated. In patients previously showing unsatisfactory response to oral monotherapy, glycaemic reductions were greater for the repaglinide/rosiglitazone combination regimen than for use of either repaglinide or rosiglitazone alone.

A comparison of insulin lispro and buffered regular human insulin administered via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump.

This study compared glycemic control achieved with insulin lispro or buffered regular human insulin in patients with Type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) using an external insulin pump. In this 24-week multicenter, randomized, two-way crossover, open-label trial, 58 patients on CSII with adequate glycemic control received either insulin lispro or buffered regular human insulin for 12 weeks, followed by the alternate treatment for another 12 weeks. Efficacy and safety measures included hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) at baseline and endpoint, home blood glucose monitoring, hypoglycemia, and frequency of pump catheter occlusion. Patients consumed a standard test meal on three occasions, with determinations of fasting, 1- and 2-h postprandial glucose values. Insulin lispro use was associated with a significantly lower HbA(1c) than was buffered regular human insulin (7.41+/-0.97 vs. 7.65+/-0.85 mmol/l; P=.004). Fasting serum glucose values before the test meal were similar between the two therapies. The 1-h (11.16+/-4.29 vs. 13.20+/-4.68 mmol/l; P=.012) and 2-h (9.64+/-4.10 vs. 12.53+/-4.64 mmol/l; P=.001) postprandial glucose concentrations were significantly lower during treatment with insulin lispro. No differences between treatments were observed in basal or bolus insulin doses, weight gain, or the incidence and rate of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, or pump occlusions. When used in external pumps, insulin lispro provides better glycemic control than buffered regular human insulin with a similar adverse event profile.